It is interesting that you put so much time, energy, and effort into excusing discriminatory policies. Are you putting as much energy into having these policies reversed? I suspect not.

The story in the Vinaya about the man acting inappropriately was an isolated incident that allegedly over 2,500 years ago and certainly does not describe all gay men. And what about lesbians? Where is the story about a lesbian woman not qualifying for ordination in the Vinaya?

And what about the Vinaya rules that clearly forbid any monk from having sex at all or from being married? The Taego Order allows it's straight male monks to be married and/or to have sex. So by your own standards, you still belong to an Order that follows some of the Vinaya while completely ignoring other aspects of it. Cherry-picking at it's worst.

Back in the time of the Buddha it made sense not to allow an unhealthy man to ordain since he would then become the responsibility of the sangha and they would have to carry him around. Physically challenged people today lead independent lives and the Taego Order would not be obligated to support them in any way so it's an outdated and completely unnecessary rule that the Taego Order is enforcing.

While some other Asian traditions may not ordain gay and lesbian people, what is different about the Taego Order is that it is promoting itself as a liberal Order reaching out to Westerners. To have such double standards for full ordination (no women, no gay and lesbian people, no one over 55 and no physically challenged people) and to expect Westerners to tolerate them because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons is absurd.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig no matter how you decorate it.

jrzen wrote:While some other Asian traditions may not ordain gay and lesbian people, what is different about the Taego Order is that it is promoting itself as a liberal Order reaching out to Westerners. To have such double standards for full ordination (no women, no gay and lesbian people, no one over 55 and no physically challenged people) and to expect Westerners to tolerate them because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons is absurd.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig no matter how you decorate it.

In some places the cutoff age for ordination seminary programs is 35.

This needs to be rethought for the simple fact a lot of people only discover Buddhism at a later age.

In East Asia I've noticed a tendency to clearly favour only giving ordinations to select youth. In principle, however, the ordination option should be available to anyone who is physically and mentally healthy.

Mind you, some people might believe that homosexuality is a mental illness and that merits rejecting someone's application on that basis.

Anders Honore wrote:The provisions about age and physical shape are frankly just common sense practical rules. There are certain rigours a bhikshu or bhikshuni must be equipped to meet. And perhaps it is also worth bearing in mind here that ordination is a privilege, not a right.

This way of thinking allows certain groups to monopolize the right to ordain people and hence increase their power.

The renunciate with the formal sanction from recognized clergy is able to acquire material and social support, while the renunciate without said sanction would find it difficult. However, in order to gain that formal sanction one must inevitably bow down in unquestioning obedience and serve ends one may not initially agree with. In such a context deference, faith in authority and free labour become virtues which at the end of the day serve a small group of individuals at the top of the hierarchy.

In other words it is a way for certain groups to coerce and demand conformity, obedience and service from individuals, which serves their own interests quite well.

This is really just samsaric behaviour wrapped up in robes and tonsured skulls. It has nothing to do with the spirit of renunciation.

A real renunciate simply drops all that bullshit and pursues enlightenment with or without the formal sanction of some hierarchy. Even if they don't have a Vinaya ordination, it doesn't matter because the Vinaya is just a set of general house rules for monastics.

It is interesting that you put so much time, energy, and effort into excusing discriminatory policies. Are you putting as much energy into having these policies reversed? I suspect not.

The story in the Vinaya about the man acting inappropriately was an isolated incident that allegedly over 2,500 years ago and certainly does not describe all gay men. And what about lesbians? Where is the story about a lesbian woman not qualifying for ordination in the Vinaya?

And what about the Vinaya rules that clearly forbid any monk from having sex at all or from being married? The Taego Order allows it's straight male monks to be married and/or to have sex. So by your own standards, you still belong to an Order that follows some of the Vinaya while completely ignoring other aspects of it. Cherry-picking at it's worst.

Back in the time of the Buddha it made sense not to allow an unhealthy man to ordain since he would then become the responsibility of the sangha and they would have to carry him around. Physically challenged people today lead independent lives and the Taego Order would not be obligated to support them in any way so it's an outdated and completely unnecessary rule that the Taego Order is enforcing.

While some other Asian traditions may not ordain gay and lesbian people, what is different about the Taego Order is that it is promoting itself as a liberal Order reaching out to Westerners. To have such double standards for full ordination (no women, no gay and lesbian people, no one over 55 and no physically challenged people) and to expect Westerners to tolerate them because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons is absurd.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig no matter how you decorate it.

It seems I have been misunderstood. My only point is that discrimination is not unique to the Taego order. And I'm not defending these policies, just providing context. As a liberal Western convert, I would love to see the entire Buddhist world see things from an inclusive perspective, so I think the criticism of discrimination in Asian Buddhism is fair.

You say your only point is that discrimination is not unique to the Taego Order. Does that excuse it in your opinion?

Please refer to my previous post in this thread in which I said I am not defending these policies. Therefore, I am not excusing them either. Context does not equal excuse. As I believe I said in an earlier post in this thread, I would love to see the whole Buddhist world be as inclusive as we would like it to be in the West.

Are you going to affect the culture in Taego Haemin? Will you tell your sensei & the rest that gay people are equally part of society and lobby for women to be treated equally? Is everyone else doing this in his sect. The only way Buddhism will change is if we change it.gasshoRory

rory wrote:Are you going to affect the culture in Taego Haemin? Will you tell your sensei & the rest that gay people are equally part of society and lobby for women to be treated equally? Is everyone else doing this in his sect. The only way Buddhism will change is if we change it.

We've had that conversation more than once and he is aware of my views, but changing the Taego Order isn't within his power as it is centrally administered in South Korea. The ruling council there makes such decisions. In fact, he has been communicating regarding these issues with the Taego hierarchy in South Korea since before I met him, trying to create change. So far, they have allowed gays and lesbians to ordain as Dharma Teachers and novice monastics in the Overseas Parish. Also, those with a criminal record may be eligible (depending upon their past offenses) to ordain as Dharma Teachers in the Overseas Parish as well. Change will come slowly.

It seems from your use of the terms "sensei" and "gassho" that you are more familiar with Japanese traditions. Zen, perhaps? The Zen orders from Japan are significantly less centrally administered and so individual teachers, especially those outside Japan who are far less under the watchful eyes of the establishment, have a great deal of freedom over who to ordain. Teachers in the Taego Order, or any Korean order that I am aware of for that matter, do not have that freedom.

Haemin wrote:Finally, I would like to point out that there is a fully inclusive ordination option through the Mook Rim (pronounced "Moong Neem") Society founded by Bishop Jongmae Park and some of his Jogye colleagues. People not eligible to ordain in the Taego Order can still study in the Taego seminary for this ordination option and then participate in all the training available in the Overseas Parish of the Taego Order.

Unfortunately, this no longer seems to be an option. I emailed Jongmae Sunim in March to inquire about this and he said "Frankly, I trying to cancel the priest or Dharma instructor ordination on the Mook Rim Society. Hence, so far I can only offer you to get an ordination under the Taego order." When I asked why this was so he said "Because some of American Buddhists complained that Mook Rim Society was founded by Jogye tradition (I was a Jogye monk when Mook Rim Society was founded) and now, I and others are under the Taego order and it seems like overlapping by Taego order...hence I don't want any trouble with both Jogye and Taego order. Case was quite complicated."

It seems like he's really trying his best to open things up but is hitting obstacles.

Dear Haemin; yes, I'm a member of Kempon Hokke Shu a Japanese a Nichiren sect and am very familiar with most of them; Soto, Rinzai, Jodo, Shinshu, Tendai etc. You're quite right the liberality is due to distance, familiarity with American values (Japanese Buddhist sects have over a 100 year old history in the US) & a kind of they don't care about it because we're not Japanese racial component.

Since you've spoken up, and as a lesbian I thank you for it, I have to say there are difficulties with culture clashes between first generation temples in the US, not just yours. The huge Fo Guang Shan marries couples but when I belonged I didn't ask about gay couples and I know the venerables here weren't too happy when I discussed how difficult it felt in such a heavily Confucian environment; one said I brought my 'sexuality' to the temple. So there is a lot of work to be done. I wish you well with gasshoRory

The America-Europe Parish of the Korean Buddhist Taego Order has made the following announcement (Press Release Pending):

1. The Taego Order America-Europe Parish clergy are now authorized to officiate same-sex marriages."The America-Europe Parish clergy are now authorized to officiate same-sex marriages in accord with the highly valued virtues and moral principles of non-discrimination, compassion, love, and complete acceptance. The America-Europe Parish governing body and sangha members have worked hard to champion the cultivation of attitudes and behaviors of complete inclusiveness and loving-compassion for all of our brothers and sisters, regardless of sexual orientation or preference."

2. The Taego Order America-Europe Parish welcomes and accepts gay novices to become Taego clergy (meaning fully ordained bhikshu and bhikshuni)."The America-Europe Parish welcomes and openly accepts all persons, regardless of any sexual orientation or preference to become Taego clergy. The America-Europe Parish administration is committed to enforcing fair and equal treatment to all prospective novices and strives to continue being an exemplary open and loving sangha, embracing and supporting all persons."

It took a little while, but I am very pleased to see this further evoulution of the rights and responsibiites of our Taego Order cergy here in North America and In Europe.

Good news but Ernie is an associate Bishop? They train 'em up fast in Taego I trained with him in gyo years ago, sweet guy but neither an intellect nor a leader as I remember. What was his Tendai name...cannot remember bother.gasshoRory